Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor(simulations): marshal OperationMsg.Msg as protoBytes #16155

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
May 15, 2023

Conversation

kocubinski
Copy link
Member

@kocubinski kocubinski commented May 15, 2023

Description

A straightforward refactor to marshal OperationMsg.Msg as proto bytes instead of AminoJSON.

A change was made to this codepath in #16048 migrating to x/tx/aminojson, but working on #16062 I discovered many tests need unmarshal support and unmarshaling is not a planned feature for x/tx/aminjson.

Proto bytes are probably preferable and more performant, I don't really know why we were using AminoJSON in the first place.


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@kocubinski kocubinski marked this pull request as ready for review May 15, 2023 16:06
@kocubinski kocubinski requested review from a team as code owners May 15, 2023 16:06
@@ -89,21 +90,18 @@ func NewOperationMsgBasic(moduleName, msgType, comment string, ok bool, msg []by
}

// NewOperationMsg - create a new operation message from sdk.Msg
func NewOperationMsg(msg sdk.Msg, ok bool, comment string, cdc *codec.ProtoCodec) OperationMsg {
func NewOperationMsg(msg sdk.Msg, ok bool, comment string, _ *codec.ProtoCodec) OperationMsg {
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt May 15, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should add a changelog entry for chains using this.

@@ -89,21 +90,18 @@ func NewOperationMsgBasic(moduleName, msgType, comment string, ok bool, msg []by
}

// NewOperationMsg - create a new operation message from sdk.Msg
func NewOperationMsg(msg sdk.Msg, ok bool, comment string, cdc *codec.ProtoCodec) OperationMsg {
func NewOperationMsg(msg sdk.Msg, ok bool, comment string, _ *codec.ProtoCodec) OperationMsg {
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt May 15, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given that this is anyway a behavior change, why not making it API breaking and remove this argument?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense to me.

Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm, one nit

@kocubinski kocubinski added this pull request to the merge queue May 15, 2023
Merged via the queue into main with commit 4c85b6a May 15, 2023
@kocubinski kocubinski deleted the kocubinski/sims-protobytes branch May 15, 2023 17:40
larry0x pushed a commit to larry0x/cosmos-sdk that referenced this pull request May 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants